Last night I saw the biographical film, In Search of Beethoven. The movie is premiering right here in Chicago in the US, but it’s also showing in London, currently. Although it was a long movie, two and half hours, the time seemed to fly right by. I enjoyed it and learned a lot. I always love to learn how certain pieces came to be, or what the composer was like when he was writing them, i.e. how was he living, was he with a loved-one or was he alone, was he rich or poor, etc. And did you know that when he was a man in his thirties and forties, he was in love with young women who were only teenagers? And I thought that his hearing loss came on when he was older, like maybe in his forties, but no – he was losing his hearing already at a much earlier age.

Also in the film I learned about how innovative Beethoven was. He composed music that no one had heard before. And I don’t mean because it was new music, but that it had certain elements in it that had never been written or heard before. Like an octave glissando – he was the first to do that. Also starting a piano concerto where the piano is the first instrument to actually begin the piece. There were many references about things like that in the move.

However, I still have a question that I’ve had for a long time, but have never been brave enough to ask. And it’s about any classical composer, not just Beethoven, although the question fits him the best. Ok here it is – and please don’t ream me out for asking such a stupid question. I really want to understand this:

These ‘innovative’ composers - if they were so innovative, then why did they not write music with more jazzy harmonies? They all sat in front of a piano when they composed, right? So wouldn’t you think that as their fingers randomly moved around on the keys, they would have accidentally hit on a jazz chord? Beethoven could write beautiful and serene pieces with sweet chords, or he could write out a tumultuous storm. I don’t understand why he didn’t stumble upon even more things, like some other ‘jazzy’ harmonies. Or what about a blues pattern, or swinging eighth notes, or a walking bass line? Why was Beethoven’s music so ‘classical’ all the time?

_________________"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

Composers usually write within socially acceptable ranges. I believe back then Beethoven wanted to please the conservative, classical audience who were the largest audience. But now, thanks to the hippies and liberals, anything goes. That's why "art" can be as "complex" and "thought provoking" as a few splatters of paint on an empty canvas or a painting of a Campbell's tomato soup can. That's why rubbish like this:

And I know what you are saying, but it's not this ugly, keyboard-smashing, dissonances sounds that I'm talking about. I mean more structured jazz chords. Beethoven pushed the envelope in his day, and yet it is still so classical. With a mind like his, I just wonder why he did not 'imagine' music that could be sort of jazzy-like. I'm probably not making any sense and can't explain what I mean very well.

_________________"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

Much of the interest of jazz lies in its frequent harmonic modulations. This is, of course, the very thing that the classic-period composers eschewed. The proponents of this new "style galant" that emerged in the 18th century tended to look at the fugal, imitative style of Bach, with its frequent modulations and shifts, as pedantic and stuffy (Johann Christian Bach is often given credit as one of the fathers of this new style).

Classic style, up to and including Beethoven, is more about rhythm and time (note groupings and rests), dramatic tension, periodic phrases, and structure (sonata form). Beethoven's harmony is rather simple. I think it's his energy and structural tightness (as well as his position standing at the threshold of the romantic era, with the expansion of the pianoforte to an instrument simulating an entire orchestra) that make him great.

That said, I must admit that in different ways, I've never cared too much for Beethoven or jazz -- both seem rather obvious and labored to me after a while (but that's a different topic). Incidentally, I think the harmony in Mozart's later works is much more adventurous than anything Beethoven did in that area (e.g., the Ave Verum Corpus, the Requiem).

That said, I must admit that in different ways, I've never cared too much for Beethoven or jazz -- both seem rather obvious and labored to me after a while (but that's a different topic). Incidentally, I think the harmony in Mozart's later works is much more adventurous than anything Beethoven did in that area (e.g., the Ave Verum Corpus, the Requiem).

That's ok. I've never cared for Bach so much, which some people around here find rather disturbing! "To each his (her) own," is what I always say. btw - I'm going to see "In Search of Mozart" next week.

jlr43 wrote:

Well, I sort of rambled here but hope this helps!

Yes, it does. I like when people open up and say something around here.

_________________"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

Beethoven's last piano sonata No 32 (Op. 111 in C minor) second movement - Arietta - is actually a set of variations. The third variation is unofficially called the "boogie-woogie" variation. If you listen to it, you'll surely reconsider about how jazzy Beethoven could be.

I am sure Beethoven knew the role of dissonant chords and had an advanced sense of harmony. But you must consider that there was a limit to what a composer could publish at the time. Relying to patrons for his financial support, he had to be cautious not to overly disturb his listeners with extended dissonance and excessive innovations. And it is obvious by his last sonatas that, should he had lived more, he could have written more freely what he really had in his mind.

If you look closely to scores, you'll find an abundance of interesting harmonic content. No composer would sustain dissonance or structure a work on what we today call jazz chords. They all tried to resolve dissonances so that they would not become annoying to the untrained ear. But they gave bits and bites, here and there, sometimes as extended hints of how they realised music or what path would music follow in the future.

Chopin for example, always incorporated improved chords even in his simple works. He used a 9th or a major 11th or a trichord with alternate bass etc. Listen to his Nocturne Op. 48-1. The slow part is exceptional in the use of chords with added extensions.

Brahms, one of my favourite composers by the way, used modern harmony extensively. I had recently recorded an Intermezzo from Op. 116 and I was overwhelmed by his elegant harmonic textures.

And of course, Bach, the man behind all music!
I don't like everything Jacques Loussier plays with his trio, but I have to admit that Bach is the master technician of modern harmony and sometimes one could easily be carried away and think Bach would be a phenomenal jazz keyboardist if he lived today. Just listen to the 'Allemande' of the first partita (preferably by Gould). Then switch to 'Donna Lee' by Charlie Parker. You'll see my point.

And Debussy's works of course, harmonically, are jazz all around.

The reason why pieces by classical composers don't sound jazzy although they contain a wealth of harmonic innovation, is because classical composers missed the second important element of jazz, rhythm, groove. The ragged, syncopated feel of rhythm with its African roots. The swing in the broad sense of the term. Ella Fitzgerald sang: "it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing", who would disagree?
Bach, realising the importance of rhythm, constructed many of his works on dance forms of his time, Allemande, Bourre, Gigue and so on. But none of these bear the grooving feel of a modern jazz tempo. I am sure a Debussy prelude played by a swinging jazz trio would easily pass as a jazz piece. Bill Evans' solos attest to that.

So, yes, I believe that all major classical composers knew what could be done with harmony and if the consensus of their time permitted, they would have been more experimental.
Personally I have gained enormously by studying and analysing classical pieces and have improved my sound when playing jazz.

Beethoven's last piano sonata No 32 (Op. 111 in C minor) second movement - Arietta - is actually a set of variations. The third variation is unofficially called the "boogie-woogie" variation. If you listen to it, you'll surely reconsider about how jazzy Beethoven could be.

That’s very interesting. I’ll try to listen to it soon. And I wonder if that’s the same piece that was mentioned in the movie I just saw? The pianist was describing a certain set of variations that are supposedly very difficult to play. In one particular part, Beethoven wrote that only one hand (the right I think) is supposed to play a long descending arpeggio at breakneck speed. Except, no ‘normal’ pianist can do it – and not many professionals either. They cheat and use both hands.

wiser_guy wrote:

If you look closely to scores, you'll find an abundance of interesting harmonic content. No composer would sustain dissonance or structure a work on what we today call jazz chords. They all tried to resolve dissonances so that they would not become annoying to the untrained ear. But they gave bits and bites, here and there, sometimes as extended hints of how they realised music or what path would music follow in the future.

Also in the movie, a string quartet played a Beethoven piece that was recently discovered and written near the end of his life. I can’t remember the name, but it sounded pretty wild to me. Not really ‘jazzy’ in a sense, but it had a lot of dissonances. That’s what got me thinking about all this in the first place.

wiser_guy wrote:

Chopin for example, always incorporated improved chords even in his simple works. He used a 9th or a major 11th or a trichord with alternate bass etc. Listen to his Nocturne Op. 48-1. The slow part is exceptional in the use of chords with added extensions. Brahms, one of my favourite composers by the way, used modern harmony extensively. I had recently recorded an Intermezzo from Op. 116 and I was overwhelmed by his elegant harmonic textures.

Hmmm…I don’t hear anything jazzy in that particular nocturne. But I’m practicing a mazurka that has a couple ‘jazzy’ chords. And I agree about Brahms and his use of harmonies. Liszt too. And Debussy. I’m sure they (plus Chopin) laid down some jazz chords when they sat improvising at a piano and worked them into their music, albeit in a conventional public-friendly way dictated by the times. But Bach? I dunno…. Guess I’ll have listen to those pieces you mentioned, because I can’t imagine Bach having even a tiny crumb of jazz harmonies in his music.

wiser_guy wrote:

So, yes, I believe that all major classical composers knew what could be done with harmony and if the consensus of their time permitted, they would have been more experimental.

Well, that’s the part I don’t get. I understand that they wrote music befitting the style of the day and for the most part, that is how they paid their bills. But as an artist, don’t you think a composer, if he had in fact discovered some jazzier-sounding chords, would want to write it in his music to show the world that there are other harmonies out there? Sort of like, “Hey, everybody. Am I not a great artist? Look at this new sound I just invented!” Or maybe even something to have in a different portfolio. Like he’d have his ‘classical’ repertoire, and then his ‘other music’ repertoire. I just don’t understand why composers were not writing music with a clear and definite jazz flavor since they sat at a piano with many keys and could easily have discovered jazz chords on their own. I guess this can relate back to what was acceptable to publish in the day and what was going to earn some income.

The rhythm thing is indeed a major factor here. Beethoven would not have known the word ‘swing’, or ‘groove’, yet he obviously knew how to write dotted rhythms. ( I wonder if he ever randomly played Fur Elise in a swinging fashion. ) But still, why didn’t composers back then know about jazz rhythms? I know things have to start somewhere, but…well…forget it. I’ve too many questions, and by now you all probably think I have lost my marbles.

Thanks for putting out some more thoughts on the subject, Pantelis.

_________________"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

The pianist was describing a certain set of variations that are supposedly very difficult to play. In one particular part, Beethoven wrote that only one hand (the right I think) is supposed to play a long descending arpeggio at breakneck speed.

No, he was obviously referring to the two last variations where Beethoven has written many small notes (25-30) in a single bar. And yes, they are extremely difficult to play, most pianists slow down there.

pianolady wrote:

I can’t imagine Bach having even a tiny crumb of jazz harmonies in his music.

Then how would you compose music for a film, Monica?Contemporary film music (and not only) uses polyphony to realise complex harmony with a large orchestra. Anything else would sound childish. Film composers go crazy with interweaving melody lines shared among groups of orchestra instruments to shape musical ideas and atmosphere.How would you explain, for example, that one of the main alert themes in the film 'Troy' uses an exact pattern from Bach's 1st partita Sarabande?

pianolady wrote:

But still, why didn’t composers back then know about jazz rhythms?

Because they hadn't been in Africa? Seriously, rhythm's role in African music is so elevated that it can stand on its own. You can hear pieces with drums, only. European composers, usually attached to palaces and monarchs or the high society just followed the strict norm, polkas, waltzes, marches.

I can’t imagine Bach having even a tiny crumb of jazz harmonies in his music.

Then how would you compose music for a film, Monica?Contemporary film music (and not only) uses polyphony to realise complex harmony with a large orchestra. Anything else would sound childish. Film composers go crazy with interweaving melody lines shared among groups of orchestra instruments to shape musical ideas and atmosphere.How would you explain, for example, that one of the main alert themes in the film 'Troy' uses an exact pattern from Bach's 1st partita Sarabande?

Well, if you are saying that the Troy music arranger added jazz chords and rhythm to the Sarabande, then I would say that he jazzed up some Bach. But if you mean that he used an exact snippet of the Sarabande, then I would say he simply used the Sarabande. Just because a film composer uses some classical (or baroque) music for a scene, does not mean that the music is automatically jazzy. Maybe we’re talking about two different things. You brought up polyphony, but I talking about harmony.

wiser_guy wrote:

Because they hadn't been in Africa? Seriously, rhythm's role in African music is so elevated that it can stand on its own. You can hear pieces with drums, only. European composers, usually attached to palaces and monarchs or the high society just followed the strict norm, polkas, waltzes, marches.

Yeah – but I can right this second think up a new rhythm that I never heard before, can’t you? A musical mind can think the same way no matter whose head it is in. (that probably doesn’t make sense) What I mean is that all of us here can image a melody, a chord progression, a rhythmic line, and so could all the other composers back in time. So that is why I wonder why the minds like Bach and Beethoven didn’t stumble upon jazz elements on their own.

But Pantelis – that Beethoven op. 111 variation that you directed me to totally surprised me. Wow – Beethoven does do ‘boogie woogie’ after all! That was a fun discovery. You and some other members always amaze me as to the depth of your knowledge.

_________________"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

But polyphony IS harmony. You don't need chords to build harmony. You can do it with polyphony. Bach clearly wanted the world to know about this discovery. At least that's what he suggested in the introductory text of his Inventions.Addressing the aspiring keyboardist he wrote (I paraphrase because I don't have the original text at hand): "... and to gain from these Inventions at least a part of my knowledge of music and develop further compositional ideas". He showed the way.

So, the Inventions where not only meant to act as exercises but also as powerful compositional tools. If you only see two voices playing together, you only see a small part of Bach's musical content. The movement of these voices as they meet and separate and meet again and so on, is an extremely effective harmonic device. Today, we usually associate chords with harmony but this is a quite limiting if you think of it. Film composers (I insist because some extraordinary film music is available) know this very well and use it all over. Some jazz pianists (Keith Jarrett comes to mind) also incorporate polyphony in their live playing instead of just dull chords.

Still in doubt?Ok, let's try Bach's first prelude from WTC I, C major. There are some fine recordings of this prelude in PS (notably Andreas'). Now just look at the score. There is no melody. Just chords. Ok, played as arpeggios maybe, since a straight chord on a harpsichord would sound terrible. This is a harmonic only piece with some very interesting dissonances creating various moods as they evolve.

You talked about walking bass?Let's listen to the Minuet from 1st Partita. Come on now, don't tell me you don't see the walking bass figure which implies every harmonic movement so nicely. No chords, yes, they are to be sensed. Just as a decent jazz pianist would not play root chords, he would rather let the listener figure them out.

And how about all of the above?Concerto for harpsichord (piano) in D minor, BWV 1052. What do you say?

pianolady wrote:

You and some other members always amaze me as to the depth of your knowledge.

Well, this is true for some members but not for me. You just happened to stir up a subject that I have studied a lot. You see, you have to play classical and understand it in order to even start thinking about laying hands on a jazz piece.

So, the Inventions where not only meant to act as exercises but also as powerful compositional tools. If you only see two voices playing together, you only see a small part of Bach's musical content. The movement of these voices as they meet and separate and meet again and so on, is an extremely effective harmonic device.

Well, that must be why I’m not getting into Bach as much as everybody else. I don’t hear how the harmonies are coming out through all the lines or voices weaving around each other. I just hear a bunch of notes. Sometimes, yes, if it is simple like when both hands are skipping around on matching tones in a chord. But no – what you are describing is completely a new idea to me.

wiser_guy wrote:

Still in doubt? Ok, let's try Bach's first prelude from WTC I, C major. There are some fine recordings of this prelude in PS (notably Andreas'). Now just look at the score. There is no melody. Just chords. Ok, played as arpeggios maybe, since a straight chord on a harpsichord would sound terrible. This is a harmonic only piece with some very interesting dissonances creating various moods as they evolve.

I’ve always liked this one the best. Maybe because I can hear the nice harmonies (plenty of them jazzy-sounding).

wiser-guy wrote:

You talked about walking bass? Let's listen to the Minuet from 1st Partita. Come on now, don't tell me you don't see the walking bass figure which implies every harmonic movement so nicely.

Ehhh…not sure about this one. Perhaps a slight walking bass line in there, but in no way does it make me think of jazz at all.

wiser_guy wrote:

And how about all of the above? Concerto for harpsichord (piano) in D minor, BWV 1052. What do you say?

This is what I say. Listen to the short one-minute sample of music I just recorded. It’s a snippet of Bach and Beethoven played in a ‘different’ way. Now do you see what I mean? The music I just played doesn’t sound anything like original classical/baroque music. Back to my question: Why didn’t Bach or Beethoven think up music like this? Do you think that maybe they thought some of this kind of harmony was ugly? We don’t, because we all have heard it before and are used to it. Or maybe they simply never imagined music like this, so that is why they never wrote like it? That is what I am thinking, but then at the same time I go back to wondering why they didn’t imagine it. Why did it take so long for jazz to come into existence?

wiser_guy wrote:

You see, you have to play classical and understand it in order to even start thinking about laying hands on a jazz piece.

I agree with that to a point. As a classical pianist, we are taught how to read notes, how to count rhythm, and how to stay within the prescribed key. But in my case, I was playing only classical music for most of my years in piano lessons and I think that made me too restricted when it comes to jazz. I am not able to find jazz chords on my own and need to have everything written out. So therefore, no way can I improvise anything sophisticated that could be considered jazz. Also, I wish I had been taught jazz at the same time when I was learning classical, because I think it would have helped me become looser (or maybe freer, or uninhibited are better words) with classical music in terms of rubato and phrasing.

_________________"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

I listened to your sample. Quite nice, although I believe that jazzying up already harmonically loaded pieces doesn't work. It would work for simple tunes (like standards) but these pieces exhibit completeness as they are, in a way that modifications sound somewhat strange to say the least.

pianolady wrote:

Back to my question: Why didn’t Bach or Beethoven think up music like this? Do you think that maybe they thought some of this kind of harmony was ugly?

I'll try my final shot in providing a convincing answer.

First component, rhythm.
No, as much genius a composer may be, he can't imagine rhythms and grooves unknown to him that have been cultivated for hundreds of years by people and cultures. Rhythm in jazz is an ethnic African style. These people brought it to the rest of the world and it has been the product of a certain culture, a way of life. Not an idea of a single man. Sorry.
You play Spanish music, you know that it has a style behind it, introduced by local composers listening (from the time they were born) and studying it for years. No, a German composer could never possibly wake up one day struck by the idea of a Spanish song. To do that, he would either have to live some time in Spain or listen to Spanish songs and them embrace the style. My point is that no matter how clever one can be, he cannot invent out the tradition and culture of other people.

Second component, harmony.
I am sure that they knew about dissonances and that their harmonic palette was huge even for today's standards. But they chose to use it in small doses. Don't be tempted to think that a piece is jazzy only when it pours out a strange dissonance at every beat. Most of the time, a small hint every four measures would be far more artistic and would make more sense. Just like in painting or photography. A half nude or hints of nudity may be several times more exciting that a total nude. I got carried away, eh?

Ok, seriously, – I get that, but I have another way around it. I’m saying that a composer can think up or invent a rhythm on his own, without first hearing it, but he wouldn’t know that he just invented something ‘Spanish’, or ‘jazz’, or whatever. He could not put a name to it like that (especially the word ‘jazz’ since there was no such word then). He would just say something like, “Oh wow – that’s a pretty neat-sounding rhythm I just made up. Think I’ll make it into a piece of music.” Same could apply to harmonies, as well. That’s what I’m getting at – does it make sense?

You don’t have to respond to me anymore if you don’t want to, Pantelis. I know I have a weird way of thinking sometimes, and right now your mind is probably pretty boggled trying to figure me out.

wiser_guy wrote:

A half nude or hints of nudity may be several times more exciting that a total nude. I got carried away, eh?

I get that. And if I can stir up this little debate among us, then it’s okay for you to toss a little juicy morsel into the pot.

_________________"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

Gosh, you're a tough customer, Monica, you know that? But I find the discussion interesting, nevertheless.

pianolady wrote:

He would just say something like, “Oh wow – that’s a pretty neat-sounding rhythm I just made up. Think I’ll make it into a piece of music.” Same could apply to harmonies, as well.

No, I don't think this could happen with rhythm. Rhythm is cultivated, not invented. Besides, rhythm was a closed subject for classical composers, they were not looking for innovation there. Rhythm was a secondary component in their music. Any deviation from a straight, standard beat would seem vulgar or rude to them (ragtime was called as such because it messed up and destroyed the straight rhythm feel that everyone was comfortable with at the time).

Today we have dance music heard all over. We have music styles which rely solely on rhythm and put harmony and musical ideas in the background. We feel familiar with pieces starting with drums only, we 'get the beat' easily. This was unearthly, alien for people of the past century.

Wiser_guy, I don't necessarily agree on your point that rhythm was a secondary component. Many classical forms are partly defined by their rhythm like nowadays dance music - the simple waltz for instance ; the fact that rhythm on the contrary had such an importance, as it defined what kind of music you were writing, might have limited innovation. Piano already had many trouble with fixed forms, for instance with the ever hard to define Sonata or the not-so-freeform Fantasie, so rhythm and meter was something of a stable point. Also, though I'm not too sure, "salon music" and "orchestral music" might have been predominant, limiting the arrival of more "solo" rhythms. For instance, composers that wrote mostly for the piano solo later on, like Chopin or Scriabin, used newer and stranger rhythms.

To get back to Pianolady's initial point, I'd say they didn't use jazz harmonies and melodic lines (unless you'd call some seventh jazzy) because it sounded foreign and plain bad to them. I mean, you can ask the same of Chopin, why didn't he wrote some atonal music ? To people who haven't experienced it, atonal music sounds bad, jazz sounds bad, even Scriabin sounds horrible to some, like Mozart or Bach sounds boring to other. Music is essentially a cultural event, anchored in its time.

To me, a more pertinent question would be : how did XXth century composers like say Rachmaninov or Gerschwin used Jazz in their music, since they knew and heart it ? Invention in music or litterature, or any art form for that matter, works differently than in science ; there isn't some definite truth, some definite beauty to find. It sometimes take several artists to rise an idea to the rank of beauty, and contrary to what Keats might have said, very few beauties remain, to us humans, a joy forever.
In the same vein, we could think on how modern music, like pop music or electronic music, uses all that has come before. On that topic, I can't help but be disappointed ; it seems most of those modern musicians are a little too fond of copying and quoting, rather than expanding what they've heard.

Sorry for the late response, Pantelis. I was away from home the past few days. And maybe you have left on your vacation already. Oh well....I'll write something anyway.

wiser_guy wrote:

pianolady wrote:

He would just say something like, “Oh wow – that’s a pretty neat-sounding rhythm I just made up. Think I’ll make it into a piece of music.” Same could apply to harmonies, as well.

No, I don't think this could happen with rhythm. Rhythm is cultivated, not invented. Besides, rhythm was a closed subject for classical composers, they were not looking for innovation there. Rhythm was a secondary component in their music. Any deviation from a straight, standard beat would seem vulgar or rude to them (ragtime was called as such because it messed up and destroyed the straight rhythm feel that everyone was comfortable with at the time).

Yeah – but so what? I know that we associate certain people with creating new kinds of music, i.e. whoever invented Ragtime – was it Joplin? Or even Elvis Presley (ok, maybe he didn't invent the music he sung, but he sure invented those moves - his gyrating hips and all that) (btw - love that!). They were not afraid to ‘go for it’. Someone has to take the first step. Just wondering why it took about 150 years from Beethoven's time.

wiser_guy wrote:

Today we have dance music heard all over. We have music styles which rely solely on rhythm and put harmony and musical ideas in the background. We feel familiar with pieces starting with drums only, we 'get the beat' easily. This was unearthly, alien for people of the past century.

Ok – you’ve got me there. I think I am running out of steam. For some reason I cannot think of anything more to say.

Teddy wrote:

To me, a more pertinent question would be : how did XXth century composers like say Rachmaninov or Gerschwin used Jazz in their music, since they knew and heart it ?

I think Gershwin used jazz elements in practically everything. Just think of all that ‘Fascinating Rhythm’ he wrote!

_________________"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

When I started reading this thread, that spot in the 2nd mvt of op. 111 came to mind immediately, and then somebody else brought it up quite quickly

I'd say that one of the first people who used harmonies _and_ rhythms that were REALLY new, different, "ugly", whatever you want to call them, was Stravinsky in his "Rite of Spring", and at the first performance of it a riot broke out. Similarly, when Brahms premiered his 1st piano concerto, after he finished playing the crowd didn't applaud. After a little while of silence, a couple people started clapping, the rest of the audience hissed at them and walked out. They didn't like the "rumbling, grumbling mass of notes" in the beginning of the 1st movement, or how the piece as a whole was "unbalanced" with the mammoth 1st movement and the rest of the piece being comparatively light.

Another example, Liszt's piano sonata (now recognized as one of his best works) was called in a review right after Liszt wrote it "Liszt's new composition, or rather DEcomposition". People weren't always as open to new ideas of harmony and rhythm and form as they are now... So when a composer was truly "innovative", they were hated in their time and then later people rediscovered them. I guess what you have to realize is that a step from the "simple" harmonies and harmonic progressions of Scarlatti or early Mozart to newer "jazz" chords, the stuff Scriabin or Schoenburg or Prokofiev or Bartok or Stravinsky or.............. wrote, doesn't just all of a sudden happen over night... there have to be steps towards it. Every now and then a bigger step is taken (like with Brahms or Stravinsky), but it has to happen in steps nonetheless.

On a side note, somebody said something about cool harmonies being lost to the audience because they go by so fast. I think this is the great thing about being the musician. It's like... music is beautiful in itself when it's performed already, but we as the musician, while we're working on the piece, get to know all the secrets and extra special moments. At least that's what makes it so great to me. Then every now and then, there's a "secret" that you get to share with your audience... THEN there are the people who find something special to share with the audience in almost every piece, and I think that's when you get a really great artist. Horowitz comes to mind But yeah... there's a certain chord in the Prokofiev sonata movement that I play (the 4th movement of the 6th sonata) that's like that though. I LOVE it when I'm practicing slow, and then when I play it up to tempo it doesn't even sound like the same chord

_________________The sentence below this is false.
The sentence above this is true.

No, I don't think that ragitme was invented by anyone in particular. It evolved naturally from cakewalks. Stride from ragtime, swing from New Orleans street bands etc. The fact that certain composers are closely linked to a certain style, doesn't mean that they invented it. They might have played a significant role in its shaping and establishing a solid commercial form but invented it? No.

diminished2nd wrote:

Then every now and then, there's a "secret" that you get to share with your audience... THEN there are the people who find something special to share with the audience in almost every piece, and I think that's when you get a really great artist.

Here's the answer: If Beethoven had "foreseen" and actually composed jazz music or twelve-tone music or minimal music or whatsoever music that has been composed a hundred years later, his contemporaries would have reacted exactly like you did in response to this video. And, I think many of us would also have commented like that, if we had lived at that time.

Born in the 20th century we are used to all sorts of "strange" music (and god forbid! -- some people even like music like that heard in the video -- how disgusting! ) , but back then to Beethoven's times (leaving away the fact that the majority of us would have never heard his music, because at that time only very very privileged people had the possibility to listen to Beethoven's, Mozart's etc. music) most of us would not have considered jazz music as music, but just as dirt (I suppose there were many who considered the music he actually wrote as rubbish).

So, why did Beethoven not compose like Boulez? Did Beethoven care for an audience? If so, why did the composer of the music from the video (obviously) not care for an audience?

To sum up my thoughts: What you consider as rubbish is always relative and dependent upon the context you're liviing in.

I totally get what you are saying. But I think it is funny that you mentioned Boulez. He is not one of my favorite composers. I once sat through Pollini playing a Boulez piano sonata (or something like that) and felt like leaving the concert hall right afterwards. Felt like I had not gotten my money's worth for the ticket price! Good thing I didn't leave, though, because next came some Chopin.

_________________"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

Hi Monica!
He's not among my favorites too . I have my problems with a lot of the "modern" stuff too (among them serial compositions like the one from the video mentioned above), but then I ask myself: "So why do you think Beethoven is a great composer, how can you say Boulez isn't?"

I once read an interview with composer Wolgang Rihm, in which he said (I don't remember in which context) that if you listen to Beethoven and his contemporary Ferdinand Ries, you would definitely be able to tell the difference. So I just bought a CD with Ries piano sonatas. So I sat down listening, and it was an interesting listening experience. I think if someone who knows almost no classical piano music was given a recording of one or two Beethoven sonatas and subsequently had to listen to a Ries sonata would guess that the last one was just another Beethoven sonata. This was also my first impression: Someone tries to copy Beethoven, on the surface it sounds like Beethoven. But listening again, it becomes clear that the "core" is missing: this certain impact, strength of Beethoven; certain passanges seem a bit clumsy.

To make things short: I'm somewhat lost in the discussion about "great" composers and "masterpieces" and "rubbish" (;-)), although I definitely consider some works masterpieces. Hmm, does this sound confusing...? I realize this is all off-topic ..... D'oh!

I've been fascinated by this discussion and decided to put my two cents in. Hope I'm not resurrecting a dead dog.

One thing to consider is that particular types of chords are not necessarily "jazzy" in and of themselves. Actually, a quick perusal of the thorough-bass section of C.P.E Bach's "True Art of Playing Keyboard Instruments" shows most of the types of chords used in jazz -- Maj 7, Maj 9, #11, b9, et. al. Beethoven was known to have studied this so he would not have needed to find them through the "hunt and peck" method.

The main difference is how they are used. In the Baroque, Classical, and even most of the Romantic mind-sets, these dissonances were melodic functions (non-harmonic tones) that required resolution. In the jazz mind-set, these notes are non-functional color tones (called "tensions" in jazz parlance). For this to happen, Beethoven would have had to free the dissonances from their melodic function.

Another thing that occurs frequently in jazz type harmonies is the use of parallelism -- particularly parallel dissonances. This took such people as Debussy and Ravel to really develop.

One more thought is that what we consider as "jazz" harmony actually developed over a century and was borrowed from many sources. The first three measures of Berg's piano sonata (1907?) is pure jazz but that type of harmony wasn't incorporated into jazz until around the 1950's in Be-Bop. Gershwin's improvisations from 1926 and 1928 (I have transcriptions of them) vary rarely use any chords that is beyond the harmonic pallet of Beethoven. His melodic uses of the blue notes (b3 and b7) are very often harmonized with simple triads in a very "Beethoven" Manner (Major followed by minor).

The influence of the impressionists didn't occur until the 1930's with such jazz pianists as Art Tatum. Not until the 1950's do we get a reliance on chords with all of the 9ths, 11ths, and 13ths -- natural and altered. These harmonies, though the chord symbols indicate them in tertian terms, often owe more to quartal concepts (chords built on 4ths) in actual practice.

So, for Beethoven to have come up with any kind of "jazz" would have required that he develop nearly two centuries of musical concepts -- in otherwords, to create a whole new musical language, not just create a new "hip" pharse or two. It would be akin to Shakespere having gone directly to writing "West Side Story" instead of "Romeo and Juliette" (Mambo anyone?)

Nobody minds if someone resurrects a dead dog unless it involves me having to do some work. But seriously, you are very knowledgeable and it is great to have people come onto the forum with different things to say.

go Jets...

_________________"Simplicity is the highest goal, achievable when you have overcome all difficulties." ~ Frederic Chopin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum